:;^.;:'^^f 


"-nm^ 


^-?'-'?^ 


'** 


^  >.^. 


'??'??- 


t      ^W' 


im~^ 


'"li  v.«.  -u  .-Mfe, ; ...  ■.^wi'tiaS'S'vL^. 


u 


« 


# 


M iscell^neoMS   LCA mpn I'^T" 


Vol  .  2-1 


r 


Ik 


n 


"^L  E  T  T  E 


THE  SYNOD  OF  ALBANY, 


SUBJECT  OF  DANCING: 

WHEREIN  IS  DISCUSSED  THE  QUESTION, 

OUGHT  THE  SYNOD  TO  TAKE  ACTION  ON  THIS 

SUBJECT,  WHICH  SHALL  BIND  THE 

CONSCIENCE  OF  THE  CHURCH? 


"  The  man  who  places  religion  upon  u  false  basis 
is  the  greatest  enemy  to  religion" — Sydney  Smith. 


BY  CLERICUS. 


ALBANY: 

PRINTED  BY  JOEL  MUNSELL. 
1847. 


LETTER  TO  THE  SYNOD  OE  ALBANY. 


Rev.  Sirs, 

Report  has  it  that  you  have  seen  fit  in  your 
ecclesiastical  capacity  to  pass  resolutions  condemn- 
ing the  practice  of  dancing  on  the  part  of  your 
church  members,  and  that  you  still  have  in  contem- 
plation more  stringent  action.  That  report  does  not 
belie  you  we  are  assured  from  the  fact,  that  you 
have  published,  within  the  past  twelve  months,  re- 
solutions to  that  effect,  in  one  or  more  religious 
papers,  and  that,  at  the  same  time,  you  appointed 
a  committee  of  your  number  to  "take  into  consid- 
eration what  further  action  is  necessary."  Perhaps 
you  are  not  aware  that  this  movement  has  deeply 
aggrieved  not  a  few  of  our  number  under  your 
spiritual  supervision,  who  have  the  misfortune  to 
differ  from  you  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  measures 
you  are  pleased  to  take.  Prevented  as  we  are  by 
the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed,  from 
meeting  you  on  the  floor  of  Synod,  and  there  dis- 
cussing the  subject  with  you,  and  having  observed 
a  manifest  disposition  on  the  part  of  individual 
presbyteries  and  other  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  push 


this  matter  to  extremes,  and  apprehending  disas- 
trous consequences  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  the 
peace  of  our  beloved  church  arising  from  this  move- 
ment, we  hope  you  will  not  deem  it  impertinent  in 
us  to  address  you  through  the  press.  AVe  may  bring 
our  views  before  you,  by  proposing  and  answering 
this  simple  question, —  Ought  the  Synod  to  take  ac- 
tion on  this  subject  which  shall  bind  the  conscience 
of  the  church? 

Or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  ought  they  to  take 
such  action  as  will  make  the  conduct  in  question  a 
ground  of  discipline  ?  We  reply  unhesitatingly  in 
the  negative.     Our  reasons  are, 

I.  You  have  no  authority  for  such  an  enactment 
in  the  word  of  God.  Not  a  single  passage  within 
the  lids  of  the  Bible,  are  we  able  to  find  which  con- 
demns the  conduct  declared  so  reprehensible  by  the 
Synod.  When  the  Bible  uses  any  language  what- 
ever on  the  subject,  it  either  speaks  of  it  approving- 
ly, as  a  religious  service,  or  mentions  it  incidentally 
as  a  social  custom,  and  that  without  a  word  of  re- 
probation. We  should  deem  it  sufficient,  simply  to 
state  this  fact,  and  leave  the  onus  prohcmdi,  where  it 
really  belongs,  i.  e.,  with  those  who  have  been 
pleased  to  originate  and  support  this  movement  in 
the  Synod,  were  it  not  that  two  late  writers,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Barnes,  and  the  author  of  a  Tract  recently  pub- 
lished by  the  American  Tract  Society,  have  attempt- 
ed to  deduce  from  the  divine  word  a  different  doc- 
trine, and  have  said  all  that  can  be  said  with  much 
force  on  that  side  of  the  question.     The  positions  of 


the  two  writers  are  not  altogether  the  same.  Dr. 
Barnes  makes  no  attempt  to  adduce  from  Scripture 
a  single  passage,  which,  in  explicit  terms  condemns 
dancing.  In  this  he  is  wise.  He  thereby  avoids  a 
most  paljDable  error,  into  which  the  author  of  the 
Tract  has  fallen  and  preserves  his  own  consistency 
as  a  Biblical  interpreter. 

We  claim  this  concession  on  the  Dr's  part,  as  an 
important  confirmation  of  our  position.  For  the 
learned  expositor's  voluminous  commentaries  do 
not  bear  the  most  complimentary  testimony  to  his 
impartiality  in  Biblical  interpretation,  especially 
where  a  favorite  theory  is  to  be  sustained.  On  the 
subject  before  us  his  zeal  is  too  manifest  to  admit 
the  supposition  that,  had  there  been  in  his  estima- 
tion a  single  passage  within  the  lids  of  the  Bible, 
bearing  explicit  and  pertinent  testimony  against 
dancing,  it  would,  have  been  brought  forward,  and 
doubtless  too,  with  an  exhibition  of  joy,  in  point  of 
intensity  at  least,  not  dissimilar  to  that  shown  by  a 
certain  one  of  olden  time,  who,  when  he  discover- 
ed the  solution  of  a  difficult  problem,  ran  through  the 
streets  exclaiming,  in  the  excess  of  his  transports, 
Eureka !  Eureka ! !  We  say  we  claim  this  concession 
on  his  part  as  an  important  one,  both  from  his  ac- 
knowledged ability  and  his  zeal  on  this  subject. 
While,  however,  he  yields  this  tacit  concession  by 
making  no  attempt  to  adduce  a  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture explicitly  condemning  dancing,  yet  he  has  cho- 
sen the  forlorn  resort  of  those  who  find  themselves 
in  like  emergencies,  and  deduced  such  condemna- 


tion  by  implication.     You  will  discover  the  gist  of 
his  argument,  and  at  once  comprehend  its  scope 
from  a  bare  announcement  of  his  text.     It  is  that 
most  often  perverted  language  of  the  Apostle  where 
he  says  that,  if  meat  make  my  brother  to  ofiend,  I 
will  eat  no  flesh  while  the  world  standeth,  lest  I 
make  my  brother  to  offend.     On  the  doctrine  of  ex- 
pediency he  builds  his  entire  argument,  a  beautiful 
structure  to  be  sure,  but  one,  which,  like  an  inverted 
pyramid,  is  much  too  large  for  its  base.    Its  weakness 
increases  in  the  exact  ratio  of  its  altitude.     What  is 
the  Bible  doctrine  of  expediency  ?     Its  application 
is  restricted  to  things  in  themselves  lawful,  or  indif- 
ferent, and  it  leaves  each  individual  to  exercise  his 
own  option  as  to  what  course  he  will  pursue  in  any 
given  circumstances.     It  never  says  that  the  pecu- 
liar notions  of  any  one  individual,  or  any  number 
of  individuals  shall  be  the  rule  by  which  others 
must  regulate  their  conduct.     Indeed  it  is  essential 
to  the  very  nature  of  Bible  expediency  to  leave  each 
individual  free  to  follow  his  own  judgment  and  con- 
science so  long  as  he  applies  the  doctrine  to  things 
in  themselves  lawful  or  indifferent.     Where  does 
it  confer  authority  upon  any  man,  or  any  set  of  men 
to  make  their  views  of  expediency  the  rule  by  which 
others  sliall  walk  ?    AVhy  did  not  the  Apostle  enjoin 
upon  the  church  at  Corinth,  and  other  churches,  to 
prohibit  their  members  henceforward  from  eating 
meat  ?    The  reason  is  obvious.    Such  an  application 
of  the  doctrine  would,  like  the  doctrine  of  expedi- 
ency, nullify  itself     For,  then,  the  eating  of  meat 


would  come  within  the  range  of  a  prohibitory  sta- 
tute. Thus  it  would  turn  out  that  expediency  pro- 
nounces that  unlawful  which  God  had  pronounced 
lawful.  Law  and  expediency  Avould  consequently 
become  diametrically  antagonistic.  Or,  rather,  ex- 
pediency thus  carried  out  would  be  resolved  into 
the  nature  of  law,  and  hence  would,  ipso  facto, 
cease,  and  would  leave  another  law  on  the  revealed 
statute-book  directly  contravening  one  already  in 
existence  —  the  one  declaring  the  eating  of  meat 
lawful,  the  other  pronouncing  the  same  unlawful. 
This  is  the  inevitable  result  of  such  an  application 
of  the  doctrine.  Apply  it  to  the  case  in  hand,  and 
you  have  virtually  the  same  result.  Grant  it  true, 
then,  if  you  please,  that  dancing  is  inexpedient. 
Yet  that  fact  does  not  clothe  you  with  authority  to 
say  to  your  brother,  "you  shall  not  dance."  You 
are  not,  therefore,  gifted  of  heaven  with  the  extra- 
ordinary prerogative,  laying  your  brother  under  the 
bans  of  a  compulsory  mandate.  So  did  not  Paul. 
He  tells  the  Corinthians  how  he  would  act  in  the  case 
concerning  which  they  consulted  him,  but  does  not 
take  upon  himself  to  say  "  you  shall  conform  to 
my  views."  On  the  contrary,  he  tells  them,  "  all 
this  is  lawful."  You  have  an  undoubted  right  to 
eat  if  you  choose.  But  my  advice  is  that  you  make 
personal  sacrifices  out  of  regard  to  the  conscience 
of  your  weak  brother. 

And  here,  by  the  by,  let  us  carry  out  the  Dr's 
argument  and  complete  the  analogy  he  has  seen  fit 
to  commence.     How  stands  the  case  ? 


Certain  weak  brethren  at  Corinth,  as  the  Apostle 
styles  them,  complain  of  other  brethren  for  purchas- 
ing and  eating-  meat  sold  in  the  shambles  after  it  had 
been  dedicated  to  idols.  He  advises  the  stronger 
brethren  to  yield  to  the  weaker  and  abstain.  In 
the  nineteenth  century  a  large  majority  of  the 
Christian  church  (for  Dr.  Barnes  and  others  claim 
the  great  body  of  the  Christian  church  as  with  them 
on  this  subject,)  are  of  a  sudden  deeply  aggrieved 
because  certain  others  occasionally  dance  for  amuse- 
ment. Their  grand  argument  is  built  upon  the 
Apostle's  advice  to  the  Corinthians  in  regard  to  eat- 
ing meat  offered  to  idols.  They  say  the  two  cases 
are  precisely  analogous.  What  is  the  consequence  ? 
Why  that  the  great  majority  of  the  Christian  church 
are  in  this  case  the  "  weaker  brethren,"  and  de- 
mand of  the  few  dancing  ones,  who,  of  course,  if 
the  analogy  holds,  must  be  the  stronger,  to  yield  to 
them  and  not  wound  their  weak  conscience.  Will 
Dr.  Barnes  and  the  author  of  the  Tract,  and  the 
STOod  brethren  who  have  been  so  active  on  this  sub- 
ject  in  the  Synod — Avill  they  carry  out  the  analogy 
and  take  this  consequence?  Will  they  acknow- 
ledge themselves  and  the  great  body  of  the  enlight- 
ened Christian  church  of  the  nineteenth  century 
the  weaker  brethren?  We  can  not  doubt.  For 
surely  it  is  more  charitable  in  us  to  suppose  that 
the  attempt  to  make  their  own  peculiar  views  of  a 
mere  question  of  expediency,  a  standard  to  regulate 
the  conduct  of  others,  especially  of  their  "  stronger 
brethren,"  results  more  from  weakness  than  from 


pride.  We  esteem  them  too  highly  even  to  insinu- 
ate the  latter  imputation.  Perhaps,  however,  if 
heads  were  counted,  it  would  turn  out  that  the 
majority  so  positively  claimed  might  not  so  greatly 
preponderate  on  their  side.  Certain  it  is  there  are 
many  good  men  and  men  too  not  greatly  celebrated 
for  their  ignorance,  who  not  only  regard  dancing  as 
harmless  but  highly  beneficial.  Thomas  Dick,  L. 
L.  D.,  who  has  written  many  useful  works  and  con- 
tributed much  to  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  edi- 
fication of  the  church,  alludes  to  dancing  as  an 
important  item  of  physical  education,  and  quotes 
an  eminent  physician  as  saying  that  "  He  made  his 
children  dance  instead  of  giving  them  physic."  A 
remark  in  our  judgment  far  more  philosophical  than 
impious.  The  celebrated  Locke,  whose  learning 
and  piety  are  not  to  be  despised,  as  his  commenta- 
ries on  Scripture  fully  evince,  argues  at  length  in 
favor  of  dancing  in  his  work  on  education,  because 
of  its  happy  tendency  in  polishing  and  dignifying 
the  manners.  He  shows  how  much  men  of  all 
professions  who  succeed  in  life  are  indebted  to  a 
graceful  address,  and  powerfully  depicts  the  incon- 
veniences of  boorishness  of  manners  both  to  indi- 
viduals and  to  society.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to 
multiply  names.  Suffice  it  to  say  they  are  neither 
few  nor  mean.  Now  again  let  us  recur  to  the  argu- 
ment from  expediency.  Why  have  not  these  breth- 
ren who  regard  dancing  so  beneficial  just  as  good 
a  right  to  insist  on  the  ground  of  expediency  that 
others  should  conform  to  their  views  as  you  have 

2 


that  they  should  conform  to  yours?  They  might 
argue  with  much  plausibiUty,  if  not  with  truth, 
that  one  great  obstacle  to  the  spread  of  Christianity 
arises  from  the  uncouthness  and  unsocial  bearing 
of  its  professors  towards  the  irreligious — that  cour- 
tesy of  manners  is  expressly  enjoined  in  Scripture — 
that  were  it  cultivated  more  by  Christians  the  great- 
er would  be  their  success — that  if  instead  of  that 
ascetic  repulsiveness  so  prevalent  in  the  church — 
if  instead  of  a  disposition  to  wage  an  indiscriminate 
warfare  on  the  pleasures  of  the  irreligious,  Christians 
were  to  mingle  more  in  their  society  and  sanctify 
their  pleasures,  then  the  gospel  would  become  like 
leaven  and  exert  a  more  wide-spread  and  hallowed 
influence.  Leaven  must  mingle  with  the  lump. 
Separation  is  not  the  true  policy.  As  society  now 
works,  the  devil  has  a  larger  share  of  gentility  and 
refinement  than  are  his  due ;  and  that  because  men 
of  taste  and  education  are  compelled  by  the  hostile 
attitude  of  Christians  to  club  together  and  associate 
by  themselves.  Being  thus  beyond  the  reach  of 
Christian  example  and  the  powerful  elements  of 
social  Christian  influence,  they  live  and  die  as  in- 
accessible to  the  gospel  as  the  Grand  Lama  himself 
We  say  these  brethren  might  so  argue,  and  urge 
that,  as  dancing  tends  so  directly  to  soften  and 
beautify  the  manners,  thus  adding  to  the  Christian 
character  the  attractions  of  social  eloquence,  there- 
fore it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  look  upon  it  with 
iiivor.  Now  have  they  not  just  as  good  a  right  to 
their  views  and  the  same  argument  from  expediency 


11 

to  support  them,  should  they  claim  conformity 
from  you?  Where  does  gospel  expediency  teach 
that  concession  is  the  duty  of  only  one  party  ?  We 
take  this  view  of  the  case  merely  to  elucidate  the 
doctrine  of  expediency  as  interpreted  hy  Dr.  Barnes. 
Again  on  the  Bible  doctrine  of  expediency.  How 
did  Paul  comment  on  this  doctrine  by  his  own  ex- 
ample ?  On  one  occasion  we  are  told  that  out  of 
motives  of  expediency  he  circumcised  Timothy. 
By  this  means  he  gained  influence  over  the  Jews. 
But  when  on  another  occasion  certain  ones  required 
him  to  circumcise  Titus,  he  stoutly  refused.  "  To 
whom,"  he  says,  in  his  own  strong  language,  "we 
gave  place  by  subjection,  no,  not  for  an  hour;  that 
the  truth  of  the  gospel  might  continue  with  you." 
Why  not  act  in  the  second  instance  as  in  the  first  ? 
Because  in  the  second  instance  they  demanded  it 
of  him  as  a  right — as  an  essential  of  religion.  To 
admit  such  a  claim,  the  Apostle  clearly  foresaw, 
would  lead  to  most  disastrous  consequences.  He, 
therefore,  not  only  refused  to  do  what  he  had  done  in 
another  instance,  but  resists  the  idea  with  as  much 
resoluteness  as  if  he  were  required  to  renounce  his 
faith.  Suppose  now  your  Synod  were  to  pass  resolu- 
tions making  dancing  for  amusement  a  ground  of 
discipline?  What  have  you  done?  You  thereby 
claim  of  your  brother  conformity  to  your  views  as  an 
absolute  right.  Would  he  not  be  clearly  justifiable, 
from  the  example  of  the  Apostle,  in  joining  issue 
and  resisting  such  a  claim?  Out  of  motives  of  ex- 
pediency he  might  conform.    But  when  you  advance 


a  step  further  and  hold  over  him  the  sanctions  of 
an  authoritative  command,  you  do  Avhat  you  have 
no  right  to  do.     You  do  what  the  word  of  God  will 
never  sustain  you  in  doing.     Nay,  you  force  your 
brother  to  resistance.     It  is  just  as  much  his  duty 
to  resist  you,  as  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Apostle  to 
resist  those  who  imposed  this  unwarrantable  exac- 
tion upon  him.     Turn  now  from  the  Apostle's  ex- 
ample,  and  read  his  verbal  explanation  of  this  very 
doctrine,  in  reference  to  the  same  matter,  he  had  in 
his  mind's  eye,  when  he  wrote  the  text  on  which 
Dr.  Barnes  founds  his  argument,  viz:  the  eating  of 
meats.     "  Let  not  him  that  eateth,"  says  the  Apos- 
tle, "despise  him  that  eateth  not;  and  let  not  him 
which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth;  for  God 
hath  received  him."     Now,  if  the  passage  on  which 
Dr.  Barnes  founds  his  argument  be  applicable  to 
dancing,   so  also  is  the  passage  just  quoted.     Both 
have  reference  to  the  same  subject.     They  involve 
and  are  designed  to  elucidate  the  same  principle. 
Let  us,  then,  read  the  latter  passage  with  the  alter- 
ation of  a  single  word.     "  Let  not  him  that  danceth 
despise  him  that   danceth  not;    and  let  not  him 
which  danceth  not  judge  him  that  danceth;  for  God 
hath  received  him.     Who  art  thon  that  judgest  another 
man's  servant?      To  his  own  master  he  standcth  or 
fallethr      On  this  last  quoted  passage  Dr.  Hodge 
comments  ns  tbllows;   "As  God  does  not  make  eat- 
in"-  or  not  eatiu"-  certain  kinds  of  food  a  condition 
of  acceptance,  Christians  ought  not  to  allow  it  to 
interfere  with  their  communion  as  brethren.      If 


13 

God  has  not  made  it  a  term  of  communion,  we  ought  not 
to  do  so.''  See  Hodge  on  Romans.  Happily  we 
have  the  comments  of  another  author  on  this  pas- 
sa'ge  whose  testimony  will  set  the  matter  at  rest — 
an  author  whose  impariiaUtij  in  Biblical  interpreta- 
tion is  in  a  fair  way  of  becoming  proverbial.  This 
author  is  the  celebrated  Dr.  Barnes  of  Philadelphia, 
Pa.,  United  States  of  America.  We  state  this  for 
fear  the  reader  might  suppose,  notwithstanding  the 
striking  similarity  between  his  commentary  and  his 
sermon,  there  were  two  persons  of  the  same  title. 
Lose  sight  then,  reader,  if  you  can,  of  the  Dr's  ser- 
mon, and  fix  your  attention  on  the  following  ex- 
tracts from  his  commentary  on  the  above  passage. 
*'  The  Apostle  here  has  happily  met  the  luhole  case 
in  all  disputes  about  rites,  and  dress,  and  scruples 
in  religious  matters  that  are  not  essential.  [Query, 
is  dancing  essential?]  One  party  commonly  des- 
pises the  other  as  being  needlessly  and  foolishly 
scrupulous ;  and  the  other  makes  it  a  matter  of  con- 
science, too  serious  for  ridicule  and  contempt;  and 
a  matter,  to  neglect  which,  is,  in  their  view,  de- 
serving of  condemnation.  The  true  direction  to  be 
given  in  such  a  case,  [ah !  indeed  ?]  is,  to  the  one 
party,  not  to  treat  the  scruples  of  the  other  with  de- 
rision and  contempt,  but  with  tenderness  and  in- 
dulgence. Let  him  have  his  way  in  it.  And  to 
the  other  party,  it  should  be  said  they  have  no  right 
to  judge  or  condemn  another.  If  I  cannot  see  that  the  Bi- 
ble requires  a  particular  cut  to  my  coat,  [See  this  illus- 
trated at  length  in  Barnes's  sermon  on  dancing,]  or 


makes  it  my  duty  to  obserre  a  particular  festival, 
he  has  no  right  to  judge  me  harshly,  or  to  suppose  that 
I  am  to  be  rejected  and  condemned  for  it.  He  has  a 
right  to  his  opinion ;  and  while  I  do  not  despise  him 
he  has  no  right  to  judge  me.  This  is  the  foundation 
of  true  charity;  [other  foundation  can  no  man  lay] 
and  if  this  simple  rule  had  been  followed,  how 
much  strife,  and  even  bloodshed,  would  it  have 
sared  in  the  church.  Most  of  the  contentions 
among  Christians  have  been  on  subjects  of  this  na- 
ture. For  God  hath  received  him.  It  means  here 
that  God  hath  received  him  kindly;  or  has  ac- 
knowledged him  as  his  own  friend.  These  scruples, 
on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  are  not  inconsistent  tvith 
true  pietij'^  (See  this  also  illustrated  at  length  in 
Barnes's  sermon  on  dancing.)  He  goes  on:  "  Who 
art  thou  that  judgest,  ^c.  This  is  a  principle  of  com- 
mon sense  and  propriety.  It  is  not  ours,  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  the  servant  of  another  man,  &c.  To 
attempt  to  control  him  is  to  intermeddle  improperly 
and  to  become  a  '  busy-body  in  other  men's  matters.^ 
1  Pet,  iv:  15.  Thus  Christians  are  the  servants  of 
God ;  they  are  answerable  to  him ;  and  ice  have  no 
right  to  usurp  his  place,  and  to  act  as  if  we  were 
"lords  over  his  heritage."  See  Barnes  on  Romans. 
Would  Dr.  Barnes  recognise  himself  in  his  own 
glass?  Why  did  he  neglect  to  apply  this  passage 
also  to  dancing?  According  to  his  own  showing 
it  bears  expressly  on  the  same  point — involves  the 
same  principle  —  and  refers  to  the  same  subject 
referred  to  in  his  text.     Qaery — How,  after  such 


15 

teaching,  would  the  Apostle  act,  were  he  called 
upon  to  preside  at  a  Session  meeting  convened  for 
the  purpose  of  disciplining  members  of  the  church 
for  dancing  ?  Query  No.  2 — How  would  he  vote 
in  a  Synodical  meeting  on  a  proposition  to  declare 
dancing  inconsistent  with  Christian  piety,  or  to 
make  it  a  term  of  communion  ?  What  his  course 
ought  to  be  is  plainly  marked  out  for  him.  For 
Dr.  Barnes  has  declared,  and  the  New  School  As- 
sembly have  ratified  the  Dr's  decision,  that,  "  There 
ought  to  be  but  one  opinion  among  the  friends  of 
religion  on  this  subject." 

In  1843  this  grave  Assembly  of  divines  went  so 
far  as  to  declare  the  practice  of  dancing  "so  entirely 
unscriptural  and  eminently  that  of  the  world,  &c.,  as 
to  render  it  not  only  improper  and  injurious  for  pro- 
fessing Christians  either  to  partake  in  it,  or  to  qua- 
lify their  children  for  it  by  teaching  them  the  art; 
but,  also,  to  call  for  the  faithful  and  judicious  exercise 
of  discipline  on  the  part  of  church  sessions,  when  any 
of  the  members  of  their  churches  have  been  guilty." 

It  is  a  source  of  regret  that  this  learned  Assembly 
did  not  point  out  some  of  the  proof-texts  by  which 
dancing  is  declared  "  so  entirely  unscriptural,''  or  do 
they  intend  to  affirm  what  the  Scriptures  ought  to 
teach?  But  they  say  it  is  so.  Let  that  suffice. 
Woe  to  the  man  who  has  the  audacity  to  think  dif- 
ferently. Submission  or  excommunication  is  his 
only  alternative.  This  is  their  decision.  What  re- 
mains but  for  the  Synod  of  Albany  to  add  their 
sanction  ?     Surely  after  such  a  stride  on  the  high- 


If 

way  of  evangelical  reform,  the  millenium  could  not 
long  tarry.  So  much  for  the  argument  from  expe- 
diency. 

We  next  pass  to  the  Tract.  As  we  have  suffi- 
ciently considered  the  argument  from  expediency, 
we  will  not  notice  what  this  writer  says  under  that 
head.  He  goes  further  than  Dr.  Barnes.  He  has 
discovered  three  passages  of  Scripture  which  expli- 
citly condemn  dancing.  Let  him  speak  for  him- 
self He  says,  "  Two  kinds  of  dancing  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible.  The  one  was  a  religious  act, 
&c.  The  other  was  a  social  amusement,  to  which 
a  religious  exercise  had  been  perverted ;  and  those 
were  deemed  vile  and  impious,  who  indulged  in  it. 
Three  instances  are  mentioned.  The  "vain  fellows 
and  shameless,"  to  whom  Michael  alludes,  2  Sam.  vi: 
20.  The  irreligious  families  whose  children  dance. 
Job  xxi:  7,  14.  And  finally  that  scene  of  impieties 
which  commenced  with  the  dancing  of  Herodias's 
daughter,  and  ended  in  the  rash  promise  of  Herod 
and  the  murder  of  John  the  Baptist."  A  little  further 
on,  the  writer  says,  in  allusion  to  these  passa- 
ges: "  For  the  only  instances  of  social  dancing  are 
so  mentioned  as  never  to  indicate  approval,  but 
usually  distinct  disapproval.  The  propriety  of  it  is 
left  as  little  in  doubt,  as  Noah's  drunkenness,  or  the 
causing  a  son  or  daughter  to  pass  through  the  fire 
to  Moloch.  Instead  of  permitting,  therefore,  God's 
word  pointedly  condemns  dancing  as  a  social  amuse- 
ment." This  discovery,  that  "  God's  word  pointedly 
condemns  dancing  as  a  social  amusement" — that 


17 

"  its  propriety  is  left  as  little  in  doubt,  as  Noah's 
drunkenness,  or  the  causing  a  son  or  daughter  to 
pass  through  the  fire  to  Moloch  —  a  discovery  which 
escaped  the  keen  eye  of  Dr.  Barnes,  though  he  had 
looked  into  the  Bible  several  times  in  the  course  of 
his  life,  and  which,  if  he  had  known  of  it,  would 
have  saved  much  of  his  valuable  time,  spent  in  con- 
structing an  argument  from  expediency  —  this  dis- 
covery was  reserved  for  the  writer  of  the  Tract.  If  it 
is  not  presumption  in  us,  we  will  venture  to  suggest, 
though  we  do  it  tremblingly,  that  we  really  doubt 
whether  these  passages  do,  after  all,  so  "pointedly 
condemn  dancing."  The  first  is  the  instance  of  the 
"  vain  fellows  and  shameless,"  to  whom  Michael 
alludes,  2  Sam.,  vi:  20.  By  what  process  the  writer 
tortures  this  passage  into  a  "  pointed  condemna- 
tion" of  dancing,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  know.  Afler 
all  our  research,  we  are  unable  to  discover  that  it 
has  the  slightest  allusion  to  dancing  at  all.  We 
cannot  account  for  his  quoting  it,  unless  we  suppose, 
that,  when  he  opened  the  Bible,  his  mind  was  so 
full  of  the  idea  of  dancing,  that  he  imagined  for  a 
moment,  the  whole  book  was  one  continued  trea- 
tise on  that  subject,  and  that  he  could  not  go  amiss; 
and  accordingly  took  the  first  passage  that  met  his 
eye,  and  this  was  it.  If  it  has  any  allusion  to  danc- 
ing, it  must  refer  to  these  persons  as  having  danced 
with  David,  on  the  occasion  of  the  restoration  of  the 
ark;  and  that,  according  to  the  writer's  own  show- 
ing, was  a  religious  service.  The  next  passage  is 
from  Job  xxi:   11.     "They  send  forth  their  little 

3 


ones  like  a  flock,  and  their  children  dance."  Did 
the  writer  suppose  when  he  quoted  this  passage  that 
the  inspired  Job  had  in  view  a  modern  ball-room, 
or  dancing  party  ?  To  show  the  fallacy  of  the  quo- 
tation, we  simply  cite  the  comments  of  Dr.  Barnes, 
the  writer's  coadjutor  in  the  good  cause,  on  this  pas- 
sage. "There  is  no  evidence  here  that  Job  meant  to 
say  that  they  taught  their  children  to  dance ;  that  they 
caused  them  to  be  trained  in  any  thing  that  now  cor- 
responds to  dancing  schools,  and  that  he  meant  to  say 
such  a  training  was  improper.  The  image  was  one 
of  abundance,  exuberance  of  feeling,  cheerfulness. 
Of  the  impropriety  of  training  children  in  a  dancing 
school,  there  ought  to  be  but  one  opinion  among  the 
friends  of  religion;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Job  referred  to  any  such  training  here,  and  this  pas- 
sage should  not  he  adduced  to  prove  that  dancing  is 
ivrons!""  See  Barnes  on  Job.  The  other  instance  is 
the  case  of  Herodias's  daughter.  As  the  writer  con- 
tents himself  with  the  bare  assertion  that  this  pas- 
sage "  pointedly  condemns  dancing,"  we  will  meet 
it  with  a  simple  denial.  Perhaps  some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod  will  undertake  to  adduce  the 
proof  ' 

There  is  nothing  more  of  consequence  in  this 
Tract,  except  the  narration  of  a  fact  in  relation  to  a 
young  lady  who  had  some  bitter  experience  of  the 
evils  of  dancing.  It  is  related  in  the  tract  as  fol- 
lows: "I  was  once  called,"  says  an  aged  pastor, 
"to  visit  a  young  lady  who  was  said  to  be  in  de- 
spair.    She  had  at  some  time  previous  been  serious, 


19 

and  had,  it  was  hoped,  resolutely  set  her  face  Zion- 
ward.  In  an  evil  hour,  some  of  her  former  associ- 
ates called  on  her  to  accompany  them  to  a  ball. 
She  refused  to  go.  With  characteristic  levity  and 
thoughtlessness,  they  employed  ridicule ;  and  final- 
ly so  far  prevailed,  that  with  a  desperate  effort  to 
shake  off  her  convictions,  and  regain  her  former 
serenity,  she  exclaimed,  '  I  will  go  if  1  am  damned 
for  it.'  God  took  her  at  her  word.  The  blessed 
Spirit  immediately  withdrew  his  influences,  &c." 
That  this  is  true,  every  word  of  it,  we  cannot  doubt. 
It  bears  on  its  very  face  indisputable  marks  of  its 
genuineness.  Like  all  true  stories  it  is  very  specific^ 
both  as  to  times  and  circumstances.  For  example, 
"she  was  said  to  be  in  despair."  Of  course  this 
was  a  tale  of  no  busy-body,  or  meddler.  Though 
the  aged  pastor  knew  nothing  certainly  of  her  state, 
yet  it  was  ^'so  said.''  No  doubt  this  "was  said"  by 
some  person  of  veracity.  Let  no  one,  therefore, 
have  the  presumption  to  call  this  in  question.  Or, 
if  a  suspicion  should  by  some  mishap,  gentle  reader, 
steal  into  your  mind,  such  suspicion  will  at  once 
vanish  when  you  consider  other  circumstances. 
When  she  made  up  her  mind  to  go  to  the  ball,  she 
said,  we  presume,  aloud,  (for  the  silent  operations 
of  the  mind,  you  know,  can  not  reach  the  ear,  so 
that,  if  she  had  not  said  it  aloud,  we  should  have 
lost  this  important  item  in  her  experience,  and  the 
story  would  have  been  greatly  marred),  yes,  she 
said  out  loud,  "I  will  go  if  I  am  damned  for  it." 
Then  too,  you  know,  it  is  so  very  natural  that  one. 


who  had  just  been  agitated  with  such  a  tremendous 
struggle  of  seriousness,  should  instantly  pass  out  of 
it.  More  still,  that  one  who  had  just  mastered  the 
struggle,  and  especially  a  lady — an  educated  and 
refined  lady,  and  that  too  in  the  presence  of  com- 
pany, should  utter  her  decision  by  the  use  of  pro- 
fane language.  But  if,  after  all  this,  the  reader  is 
still  inclined  to  doubt,  the  next  circumstance  will, 
we  are  sure,  set  the  matter  at  rest,  nay,  beyond  all 
peradventure.  "  God  took  her  at  her  word."  Yes, 
the  writer  of  the  Tract  "says"  the  aged  pastor  "said" 
so.  Whether  the  writer  himself  heard  it  from  the 
aged  pastor's  own  lips,  or  whether  some  one  "said" 
to  him  that  the  aged  pastor  "said"  so  to  some  one 
else,  certain  it  is,  the  story  came  directly  from  him. 
How  the  aged  pastor  came  to  know  the  mind  of 
God  on  the  subject  is  not  very  definitely  "said,"  we 
acknowledge,  but  we  take  it  for  granted  he  knew  it 
somehow.  He  might  have  been  inspired,  or  the 
Almighty  may  have  spoken  audibly  from  heaven, 
notwithstanding  all  that  theologians  say  about  the 
cessation  of  miracles.  For  it  would  be  wronjr  to 
suppose  the  aged  pastor  would  make  so  grave  an 
assertion  without  the  most  positive  assurance.  But 
seriously.  Our  patience  is  utterly  exhausted  with 
this  sickly  cant.  When  will  men  of  sense  cease 
this  blasphemous  usurpation  of  the  powers  of  God? 
When  will  they  cease  consigning  their  fellow- 
creatures  to  perdition  for  acts  which  God  has  not 
condemned !  On  the  whole,  we  regard  the  Tract  as 
the  lamest  of  all  lame  arguments  on  this  subject. 


21 

We  are  told  that  the  committee  who  awarded  the 
premium  to  the  writer  refuse  to  tell  his  name.  This 
is  right.  Give  the  man  his  $250  — if  that  be  the 
premium  offered,  and,  if  you  regard  his  reputation, 
by  all  means  lay  him  under  additional  obligations 
of  gratitude  for  suppressing  his  name.  We  wonder 
at  the  committee.  More  do  we  wonder  at  the  Ame- 
rican Tract  Society.  As  much  as  we  love  the  insti- 
tution, we  cannot  forbear  the  remark,  that  it  re- 
mains yet  to  be  seen  whether  it  will  raise  itself 
much  in  the  esteem  of  Christendom  by  sending  forth 
such  crude  and  unscriptural  tracts.  We  hope  the 
common  funds  of  the  church  will  not  be  appropri- 
ated to  defray  the  expenses  of  its  publication.  It 
was  bad  policy  for  the  society  to  meddle  with  the 
matter  at  all.  Better  confine  itself  to  preaching  the 
weightier  matters  of  faith  and  repentance.  Or,  if 
it  must  meddle  with  such  subjects,  let  it  not  give 
its  high  sanction  to  such  palpable  perversions  of 
scripture.  That  Divine  Agent,  whose  office  it  is  to 
make  the  word  effectual,  will  not  connive  at  pious 
frauds,  and  it  is  vain  for  man  even  in  a  good  cause 
to  dictate  for  Him  an  interpretation  different  from 
what  He  originally  intended. 

It  might  not  be  amiss  to  pay  our  respects  briefly 
to  the  fly-leaf  of  this  Tract.  Whatever  else  may  be 
said  of  the  Tract  it  is  no  hypocrite.  So  far  as  the 
matter  is  concerned,  the  outside  bears  a  very  fair  cor- 
respondence with  the  inside,  though,  evidently  from 
the  style,  written  by  another  hand.  Probably  we 
are  indebted  for  this  consistency  or  coincidence  more 


22 

to  the  subject  than  to  the  persons.  This  writer 
asks — "Shall  Christians  dance?"  and  then  dis- 
courses as  follows: 

"  AVhy  not  Christians,  if  anybody?  We  would 
not  advise  a  sinner  to  dance.  A  sinner  is  an  enemy 
to  God ;  and  shall  he  dance  ?  A  sinner  must  repent, 
or  perish;  and  shall  he  dance?  A  sinner  is  on  the 
way  to  hell,  and  may  be  there  in  an  hour:  shall  he 
dance  ?  There  is  something  supremely  shocking  in 
the  idea  of  a  dancing  sinner.  What  fearful  decla- 
rations are  those  of  Job!  "  They  send  forth  their 
little  ones  like  a  flock,  and  their  children  dance. 
They  spend  their  days  in  wealth,  and  in  a  moment 
go  down  to  the  grave."     Job  xxi:  11,  13. 

Of  course,  in  view  of  his  eternal  responsibilities, 
the  sinner  ought  to  be  extremely  careful  as  to  his 
bodily  attitudes.  We  are  sorry  this  writer  has  not 
enlightened  the  sinner  as  to  what  attitudes  are  un- 
scriptural.  Ignorance  on  a  matter  so  momentous 
ouoht  at  once  to  be  dispelled.  Whether  the  sinner 
shall  put  his  right  or  left  foot  first,  or  whether  he 
may  of  a  sudden  raise  either  of  his  feet  higher  than 
usual — or  whether,  if  he  does,  the  body  may  rise 
with  it,  or  whether  in  his  movements  he  shall  be 
permitted  to  turn  quickly  around,  or  describe  a  cir- 
cle, or  a  triangle,  or  a  parallelogram,  or  a  hexagon, 
(we  do  not  mean  one  of  Dr.  Cox's  hexagons) — as 
to  all  these  important  points  the  writer  leaves  the 
sinner  wholly  in  the  dark.  But  on  one  point  the 
writer  is  plain  and  perspicuous  —  the  sinner  must 
not  dance.     He  would  not  advise  a  sinner  to  dance. 


23 

Why?  "A  sinner  is  an  enemy  to  God.  Shall  he 
dance?"  Nor,  perhaps,  though,  he  does  not  say, 
would  he  advise  a  sinner  to  put  on  a  cheerful  coun- 
tenance. For  is  it  not  just  as  wrong  to  express 
pleasurable  emotions  by  the  muscles  of  the  face  as 
by  the  motions  of  the  feet  ?  No,  we  think  it  is 
plain  the  sinner  ought  not  to  do  even  this.  Particu- 
larly he  should  not  go  so  far  as  to  laugh  outright. 
Shall  the  sinner  laugh  ?  A  sinner  is  an  enemy  to 
God ;  and  shall  he  laugh  ?  A  sinner  must  repent  or 
perish ;  and  shall  he  laugh  ?  A  sinner  is  on  the  way 
to  hell,  and  may  be  there  in  an  hour;  and  shall  he 
laugh  ?  There  is  something  supremely  shocking  in 
the  idea  of  a  laughing  sinner.  No,  sinner,  you 
must  not  laugh.  You  must  go  through  the  world, 
not  with  a  cheerful  visage  nor  with  supple  steps,  but 
with  a  gloomy  air  and  a  slow  and  measured  tread,  as 
if  you  were  following  an  only  friend  to  his  funeral 
home.  Should  you  chance  to  read  an  anecdote,  no 
matter  how  amusing,  you  must  not  laugh.  Should 
your  eye  accidentally  rest  on  one  of  the  monkey 
tribe  performing  some  ludicrous  antics  in  imitation 
of  your  own  species,  be  careful,  you  must  not  laugh. 
Should  you  chance  to  discover  a  tract  on  important 
items  of  religious  practice,  which,  on  its  very  face 
wears  rather  the  appearance  of  burlesque  than  of 
seriousness,  be  careful,  you  must  not  laugh.  "You 
are  an  enemy  to  God."  We  have  already  given  you 
the  reasons  why  you  should  not  express  pleasurea- 
ble  emotions  either  by  your  countenance  or  your 
feet.     In  addition  to  these  reasons  we  will  reiterate 


24 

the  exclamation — ^W^hat  a  "fearful"  declaration  is 
that  of  Job !  "  They  send  forth  their  little  ones 
like  a  flock  and  their  children  dance,"  or,  as  Dr. 
Barnes  would  interpret  it — "their  children  are  ela- 
ted with  joy."  "Fearful!"  more  " fearful ! !"  most 
"  fearful ! ! !"  What  right  had  those  children  to  be 
joyful  ?  Would  they  not  have  scampered  with  utter 
consternation  for  some  safe  refuge  had  their  urchin 
ears  in  one  of  these  joyful  pastimes,  of  a  sudden, 
heard  a  spirit  voice  barely  enunciate  the  terrible 
word,  d-a-n-c-e  ?  Would  they  not  have  been  sure 
of  the  proximity  of  a  ghost  ?  Older  men  than  they ; 
men  of  gray  hairs,  of  learning  and  experience  — 
have  discovered  terrors  connected  with  that  word 
of  the  most  "  fearful"  character.  But  we  cannot, 
for  want  of  room,  follow  out  this  writer  through 
all  his  interesting  and  logical  remarks.  His  re- 
maining arguments  are  equally  as  profound  and  de- 
monstrative as  the  specimen  already  given.  Or,  if 
you  will  pardon  the  vulgarity  of  the  quotation ;  in 
the  language  of  the  razor-strop  man,  "  There  are 
more  left  of  the  same  sort." 

We  have  now  shown,  as  we  think,  conclusively, 
that  the  Synod  has  no  warrant  in  the  word  of  God 
for  condemning  dancing.  And  we  deem  it  best  for 
ecclesiastical  bodies,  as  well  as  individuals,  "  not 
to  be  wise  above  what  is  written." 

Our  second  objection  to  such  legislation  is,  that 
it  is  contrary  to  the  examples  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles.  It  is  a  glorious  feature  in  the  gospel  that 
it  aims  its  main  blow  not  at  efiects,  but  at  causes. 


25 

Accordinoly  we  find  the  Apostles  never  adopt  the 
policy  of  legislating  against  outward  forms  of  par- 
ticular vices,  but  in  imitation  of  their  divine  Mas- 
ter, they  lay  the  axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree.  They 
do  not  content  themselves  with  lopping  off  here  and 
there  a  branch,  as  if  that  would  destroy  the  tree  it- 
self There  was  as  much  reason  in  their  day  as  in 
ours,  that  they  should  put  forth  special  enactments 
against  slavery,  intemperance,  and  other  evils,  and 
dancing  too,  if  it  be  an  evil.  But  did  they  proceed 
thus?  Show  us  a  single  instance?  Why  did  not 
Paul,  when  at  Rome,  his  ears  were  repeatedly  sa- 
luted with  the  frenzied  shouts  of  the  populace,  revel- 
ling in  the  amphitheatre  over  the  bloody  contests 
of  the  gladiators — why  did  he  not  call  an  ecclesi- 
astical council,  and  send  forth  to  the  world  a  spe- 
cial enactment  against  those  abhorrent  scenes? 
Why  did  he  not  feel  the  pressure  of  conscience  like 
many  of  our  modern  reformers,  lest,  without  such 
an  enactment,  his  silence  would  be  construed  into 
approval?  Because  the  Apostle  had  discovered  a 
more  excellent  way.  Faith  and  repentance  were 
the  burthen  of  his  preaching.  His  policy  was  to 
strike  at  the  heart.  If  he  could  effect  the  conver- 
sion of  men,  their  reformation  in  other  matters 
would  come  of  course.  Whereas,  if  his  efforts  had 
been  aimed  only  at  the  exterior  act,  he  would  not 
have  cut  off  the  source  of  these  evils.  There  is  no 
virtue  in  that  kind  of  policy,  tending  to  a  reno- 
vation of  the  heart.  But  you  make  a  man  a  Chris- 
tian and  you  make  him  a  temperance  man,  and  a 

4 


26 

reformed  man  in  all  things,  intrinsically  inconsis- 
tent with  piety.    In  the  other  case  you  gain  nothing ; 
at  all  events,  nothing  on  which  you  can  rely,  and 
of  permanent  utility.     Indeed  the  whole  policy  of 
special     organizations,     and    special     enactments 
against  special  evils  is,  in  our  humble  judgment,  in- 
correct.    Providence,  no  doubt,  has  wise  reasons  in 
permitting  the  experiments  of  the  present  age  to  be 
tried.    He  may  thereby  demonstrate  to  the  world  by 
our  experiments  and  to  succeeding  ages  that  his  own 
plan  of  reforming  men  which  strikes  at  the  heart, 
the  source  of  all  these  evils,  is  the  best.     So  thought 
Paul,  and  his  colleagues.     "  God  forbid  that  I  should 
glory,"  says  he,  "save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."     Nor  did  he.     Imagine  for  a  moment  the 
Apostle  turning  aside  from  his  grand  mission  and 
sending  word  to  Corinth  or  Ephesus  that  on  a  cer- 
tain day  he  would  be  there  and  lecture  on  anti- 
slavery,  or  temperance,  or  on  dancing,  or  on  any 
other  particular  evil,  after  which  he  would  organ- 
ize a  society!    What  can  be  more  ludicrous !     And 
is  the  nature  of  your  mission,  reverend  sirs,  difierent 
from  his?     Ought  you  to  turn  aside  and  concen- 
trate your  energies  on  particular  vices  ?     No,  not  if 
you  would  adhere   to  apostolic  example.      If  the 
same  labor  and  zeal,  and  time  and  money,  which 
have  been  spent  in  the  19th  century  in  this  way, 
had  been  devoted  to  the  direct  furtherance  of  the 
gospel,  there  would  have  been  at  this  day  a  far  more 
wide-spread  and  substantial  reformation  in  all  these 
particular  respects  than  there  is   now,  and   many 


21 

more  souls  saved  —  to  say  nothing  of  the  church 
contentions  and  distractions  these  proceedings  have 
caused.  This,  we  take  it,  is  God's  way  of  reform- 
ing the  world.  Dancing  too,  like  other  evils,  if  it 
be  an  evil,  is  not  so  much  a  cause  as  the  effect  of  a 
cause.  Suppose  you  suppress  it  ?  What  have  you 
done  ?  You  have  done  your  brother  but  little  good 
so  long  as  the  disposition  that  led  him  to  indulge 
remains.  That  disposition  will  soon  break  out  un- 
der other  forms  equally  objectionable.  Will  you 
follow  him  on  through  all  these  forms?  Well, 
what  have  you  achieved  when  all  is  done?  He 
at  length  goes  into  eternity  with  his  disposition  un- 
changed, while  the  effects  of  his  influence  are  not 
in  the  least  curtailed.  Adopt  the  better  course. 
Follow  God's  plan.  Aim  at  the  heart.  Remove 
the  cause,  and  the  effect,  so  far  as  it  is  an  evil,  will 
cease.  Make  him  at  heart  a  Christian,  and  secure 
the  benefits  of  his  influence  in  the  great  work.  So 
did  the  Apostles.  So  do  ye.  Depend  upon  it,  you 
will*  gain  nothing  by  passing  resolutions  placing 
your  brethren,  who  differ  from  you,  on  a  level  with 
those  who  revel  in  the  haunts  of  wickedness. 

Our  third  objection  is,  that,  by  so  doing,  you  de- 
part from  the  fundamental  principles  of  genuine 
Protestantism.     You  do  this  in  three  respects. 

1st.  You  add  unauthorized  supplements  to  the 
word  of  God.  You  engraft  upon  it  a  doctrine  which 
it  does  not  teach.  Will  you  after  the  example  of 
Rome  attempt  the  work  of  supplying  the  deficiences 
of  the  divine  word,  by  putting  forth  resolutions 
and  enactments  which  it  no  where  authorizes  ? 


28 

2nd.  You  usurp  a  power  over  your  brother's  con- 
science which  you  have  no  right  to  assume.  You 
have  no  right  to  say  to  your  brother,  you  shall  or 
shall  not  do  this  or  that,  in  regard  to  any  thing  con- 
cerning which  the  word  of  God  gives  you  no  au- 

3rd.  You  thereby  make  unauthorized  tests  of 
church  membership.  If  you  say  to  your  brother, 
you  shall  not  dance,  when  the  word  of  God  says  no 
such  thing,  do  you  not  make  an  extraneous  or  illegal 
test  of  church  membership  ?  Now  we  do  not  pre- 
tend that  by  such  enactments  you  will  immediately 
set  your  church  members  saying  ave  marias,  or 
counting  beads,  or  doing  penance.  But  you  virtu- 
ally give  up  to  Rome  principles,  which,  if  carried 
out,  would  authorize  all  her  extravagancies.  And 
what  can  you  say  ?  Will  you  accuse  her  of  adding 
supplements  to  the  word  of  God  ?  Her  reply  is,  so 
do  you.  Look  at  your  Synodical  records.  Do  you 
tell  her  she  usurps  unauthorized  power  over  the  hu- 
man conscience  ?  She  answers,  so  do  you.  Look  at 
your  Synodical  records.  Do  you  reproach  her  with 
making  unscriptural  tests  of  church  membership? 
Her  reply  is  still,  so  do  you.  Look  at  your  Synodi- 
cal records.  The  truth  is,  such  legislation  as  this 
has  already  given  Rome  the  vantage-ground  over 
Protestantism.  In  our  late  discussions,  her  cham- 
pions have  used  the  argumentum  ad  hominem  with 
tremendous  effect,  and  we  predict  that  even  Kir- 
wan  will  yet  feel  its  power. 

Our  fourth  objection  is,  that  you  will  by  so  doing 


29 


open  the  door  for  like  attempts  by  that  class  of  re- 
ligionists commonly  known  as  men  of  "  one  idea," 
and  will  thus  lead  all  our  ecclesiatical  bodies  into 
inextricable  embarrassment.     If  you  make  dancing 
a  test,  or  legislate  on  the  subject,  why  not  the  hold- 
ing of  slaves?    Why  not  moderate  drinking  of  wine 
or  other  liquors  ?  Why  not  legislate  against  fashiona- 
ble parties  ?     Dr.  Barnes  in  the  outset  of  his  discus- 
sion of  this  subject,   says,    ''  The  question  is  not 
whether  balls  are  or  are  not  as  proper  as  large  and 
expensive  fashionable  parties."     We  grant  that  in 
one  sense  it  is  not  the  question,  i.  e.,  it  is  the  fact, 
that  Dr.  Barnes  in  his  sermon  considers  the  subject 
of  dancing.     But,  so  far  as  the  principle  involved  is 
concerned,  it  is  as  really  the  question  as  dancing. 
You  are  just  as  much  bound  to  set  your  face  against 
the   one  as   the  other.     Dr.  Barnes  himself,  says, 
''  For  myself,  I  freely  confess,  I  see  no  great  diftir- 
ence ;  and  as  a  Christian  man,  I  would  as  soon  ac- 
cept of  an  invitation  to  the  one  as  the  others     Now 
suppose  some  brethren  whose  "weak  conscience" 
is  wounded  by  these  parties  were  to  come  up  to  the 
Synod   and  urge   you   to   put  forth  an  enactment 
against  fashionable  parties  ?     Could  you  consistent- 
ly refuse?     They  would  use  your  own  arguments 
in  application  to  dancing,  and  with  just  as  much 
force.     Would  you  comply?     Then  carry  out  the 
principle  and  see  where  you  will  end  ? 

Our  fifth  objection  is,  that  while  such  legislation 
is  powerless  to  reform,  it  will  produce  division  and 
contention  in  the  churches.     Already,  if  report  be 


so 

true,  some  of  our  churches  and  ministers  too  have 
suffered  by  this  means,  while  no  perceptible  good 
has  been  accomplished. 

Our  last  reason,  Rev.  sirs,  relates  to  yourselves. 
Your  power  for  doing  good  depends  not  a  little  on 
the  degree  of  confidence  and  respect  you  inspire  for 
yourselves  on  the  part  of  your  lay-brethren.  In  pro- 
portion to  the  intensity  of  that  respect  and  that  af- 
fection will  be  your  usefulness.  In  proportion  as 
you,  by  your  ecclesiastical  or  individual  action  les 
sen  that  respect,  in  the  same  proportion  you  impair 
your  usefulness.  We  desire  to  respect  your  head 
as  well  as  your  heart.  Attempt  not,  then,  to  in- 
trench upon  our  rights.  Remember  that  while  we 
are  enjoined  to  be  in  subjection  to  you  as  our  rulers, 
yet  you  also  are  cautioned  not  to  "  Lord  it  over 
God's  heritage."  We  had  designed  to  suggest  other 
objections  relating  to  the  constitution  of  our  church. 
We  cannot  discover  that  that  either  authorizes  you 
as  a  Synod  to  pass  such  enactments.  However,  we 
will  not  trouble  you  further  at  present.  If,  after  all 
these  reasons,  you  see  fit  to  push  the  matter,  we 
have  two  things  to  ask.  First,  that  when  you  frame 
the  enactment  you  Avill  give  it  an  appropriate  title. 
Call  it  by  its  right  name.  For  example  "an  act  to 
regulate  the  attitudes  of  the  members  of  the  church." 
Secondly,  accompany  it  with  a  code  defining  what 
attitudes  arc  improper.  In  order  to  obey  we  wish 
to  know  the  law.         Yours  truly, 

CLERICUS. 


i 


^ 


\ 


^ATE  DIJP 


^iMrai^BSI^RL 


y!-    V 

^:         y.- 

_^yw^^w 

.  - 

w;«^HHEi 

■  "'^-  ■  ^ 

J:^ 

^H                            i 

^H^       ,\ii  • 

VK 

m^' 

ryC/."  iUi.i 


^yy^^.^'^M 


